Dog years
Aqua Utopia|海の底で記憶を紡ぐ
todays bird

❣ Chile in a Photography ❣

Love Begins
★
Doug Jones

Andulka

shark vs the universe
Misplaced Lens Cap

Jar Jar Binks Fan Club

#extradirty
𓃗
ojovivo
The Bowery Presents
I'd rather be in outer space 🛸

No title available
Lint Roller? I Barely Know Her

tannertan36
The Stonewall Inn
Not today Justin
seen from Vietnam

seen from United States
seen from Canada
seen from Türkiye
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Chile

seen from United States

seen from Georgia
seen from Germany
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from Germany

seen from Vietnam
seen from Uruguay
seen from United States

seen from Trinidad & Tobago
@ghostofaraven
Dog years
Red line of fate
a reminder that ao3 was created as an archive. not a social media.
ao3 is run on fans’ donations. it’s a nonprofit organization, run by fans, for fans. it has no ads. no capitalism or algorithm bullshit.
ao3 allows works that depict all kind of taboo, morally questionable, disgusting, socially unacceptable subjects, no matter how graphic, how explicit it is being portrayed (that’s what tags, warnings and ratings are for!).
ao3 does not have censorship, nor does ao3 allow censorship.
making peace with it
hottest fucking thing one can read, really (x)
these quotes answered all my questions ^^ very cool!
I was so lucky to see the SDCC panel for this movie last July and the behind the scenes/concept art they showed there was CRAZY. They showed pictures of the rock tunnel they built and talked about how they made it so it'd be translucent. I was so blown away by just the concept art and bts that I knew I had to see this movie and despite having nearly a year of build up for me it did not disappoint.
It was a packed theater and we were all laughing and crying it hit every note and you best believe im rewatching it the second it is on streaming (if not a theater rewatch)
Good news: if you’re currently laying around and not producing anything, you are a credit to your species.
It’s recently been found that even hive insects rest. Bees will play with colorful toys. Ants sleep for about 1 minute but they do it so frequently it amounts to a few hours per day. Even trees take breaks.
The only things that work without rest are machines; literally everything that lives requires rest.
EVERYTHING THAT LIVES REQUIRES REST. STOP JUDGING YOURSELF FOR NOT BEING A ROBOT.
robots require very frequent breaks! welding machines generally have it programmed in that they can’t run so long they melt themselves. ive overseen two different manufacturing robots now and each of them were fragile, finicky idiots that require constant maintenance and repair. they pause in between moves, in between jobs. you’re always keeping an eye on programming errors, on coolant levels, on heat. you’re always pulling bits of scrap out of joints, sweeping up debris, washing off nozzles and untangling hoses. and even then it snaps a chain and takes a whole morning’s vacation.
even robots need downtime.
[Image ID: Tweet from SpookyBritches Jules (@/ SQLPi) on Oct 12, 2020 reading: Reminder that you are an omnivore, a predator, and a pretty big one at that. You are not a bee or an ant. It is, in fact, normal for you to just want to lay around not producing anything. You’re a mammal. Stop judging yourself for not being a hive insect. /End ID]
Plain text: Everything that lives requires rest. Stop judging yourself for not being a robot.
project hail mary animatic i finished a few days ago! contains spoilers of a scene towards the end of the book…
While the Daddy's Little Toy discourse is hot, I wanted to chime in some thoughts I had. Mainly on the (weirdly) debated topic of whether or not fiction has any real world impact, and in this case whether reading that book would cause someone to harm actual children.
Human beings, they have morals. These morals vary widely and are shaped by people and events growing up and even through adulthood.
These morals can be rigid and basically universally accepted (rape is bad period, no exceptions), rigid but with variance within society (you should never eat meat vs eating all meat is okay vs eating some meat is okay such as kosher or halal), or even flexible (murder is bad, except in cases of self defense or war). They can also vary over time (as a teen you think homosexuality is bad, as an adult you're queer supportive).
With that, I'd like to state my main point:
Yes, fiction *can* impact and shape your morals and behaviour, but it can not push you outside of those existing moral boundaries.
For example, a person may watch the Addam's Family and say "I like how Gomez treats Morticia, I'm gonna treat my future wife just like that". This is a case of fiction impacting your morals, within an existing moral framework. The person already was going to respect their wife, but now they'll do it differently
If you took a man who beats his wife and showed him the same show, he's not likely to stop beating his wife, just because a show demonstrated how to treat a wife.
Additionally, if you showed an average Joe American Psycho, they're not gonna go become a Wall Street stockbroker and kill women. That's because they already see homicide as wrong.
Fiction can not move your morals, it can only reshape them, and only ever for the better. It can push you to want to be a good person, but it can't push you to want to be a bad person.
We're not blank slates that will just blindly do whatever is shown in a book or show. We have morals that we bring into media consumption, that tells us "Hey this guy is good" or "this guy is bad". We have morals to tell us that, it's not the authors job to say "This man is a bad man", and "this man is a good man". To think that we are going to replicate whatever we read is to think that we don't have any morals of our own and we rely on media to tell us how to act.
People aren't like that.
beautiful post !!!!!!!!
one of my favorite professors thus far was a communciations teacher and so i will always remember learning about the magic bullet theory, and how it was rooted in, amongst other things, misogynistic views of how housewives engage in media.
from memory: the theory was popular around the mid 20th century in Western communication studies. it is called "magic bullet" theory because it essentially saw media as being able to magically change the beliefs of a viewer simply through viewing it. another term (one which is less easily confused with a theory on the assassination of JFK) is "hypodermic needle theory," which imagined media as being able to inject values and beliefs in the viewer, who received this passively and largely helplessly.
now there's a lot else going on here im sure, but my comms professor was a bisexual woman and so followed this theory up with sociologist Herta Herzog's What Do We Really Know About Daytime Serial Listeners?. she looked at housewives and their relationship with soap operas, and found that rather than passive consumers of the content, they were actively seeking out and engaging with the media. Herzog helped found "uses and gratifications theory"* by establishing that the women had their own motivations and got their own gratification out of media. these serials weren't just pushing ideas on mindless consumers who would think and act however they were told. they were thinking people and active in their relationship to media, and they had things to say about the media they engaged with.
the problem is not and has never been with the idea that fiction influences people. the things we engage with can absolutely reinforce certain feelings and ideas, or create new ones in us.
the problem lies in people thinking that media is more powerful than human self-reflection and social interaction. the idea that we are psychically or spiritually vulnerable to corruption through fiction. it denies people's ability to reflect on themselves, engage with each other and question each other and grow from these experiences, and worst of all, it denies our ability to be active and purposeful in our own worldviews and our actions. it is disempowering to everyone because it encourages people to view themselves as mentally / philosophically weak and helpless, rather than teaching them to trust themselves and each other to be able to grapple with complex ideas and practice discernment.
*This was part of the cognitive revolution, and Herzog was also the inventor of the focus group & pioneered qualitative studies. not relevant to the post but i bet you didn't know the person who did that was a woman! she was also disabled from polio and
bat opens up their little bat wallet to find they are all out of moths. A worthless $100 bill flies out for emphasis
From top-of-frame, a month flutters into the wallet. Confused, the bat looks "up" to see an equally-confused human standing "above" her, holding an open wallet containing a single $100 bill.
Camera rotates to reveal bat has been hanging upside down above a human doing the exact same visual gag and each ruined the other's bit.
Laugh track.
All so true. Why is the human Jon Arbuckle
Art by Elena Kononenko
Hehe frames
𝔞𝔩𝔴𝔞𝔶𝔰 𝔰𝔢𝔞𝔯𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔫𝔤
A peaceful day in the Arctic Empire, perfect for a little stroll <3
my corner store guy is a 50 year old man who's my best friend in the world and recently he was like "you're too pretty to be single I have some nephews you should meet. very handsome!" and I was like "a niece might be more up my alley" and he just got more excited and said "ah even better! I was overselling my nephews but my nieces are very beautiful"
OP the tags!!
recently my friend's comics professor told her that it's acceptable to use gen AI for script-writing but not for art, since a machine can't generate meaningful artistic work. meanwhile, my sister's screenwriting professor said that they can use gen AI for concept art and visualization, but that it won't be able to generate a script that's any good. and at my job, it seems like each department says that AI can be useful in every field except the one that they know best.
It's only ever the jobs we're unfamiliar with that we assume can be replaced with automation. The more attuned we are with certain processes, crafts, and occupations, the more we realize that gen AI will never be able to provide a suitable replacement. The case for its existence relies on our ignorance of the work and skill required to do everything we don't.
ouuh brother
Everything is like “QUEER history” and “List of QUEER young adult books” or “Top 10 QUEER movies” and queer this and queer that and for the love of god please just say LGBT.
And faster to pronounce if you are talking instead of writing.
It’s not more inclusive, and if your excuse of using a slur as a blanket term is “it’s faster to say”, GENUINELY what is wrong with you
It’s called economía del lenguaje.
It’s also the respected academic term?? The acronym isn’t static and it’s usage is varied by things like generational difference, location, and knowledge of the community. Even just in the U.S. in the last few decades the common usage gone from GLBT to LGBT to LGBTQ, to LGBTQA/LGBTQIA/LGBTQIAP/etc (Which, let me tell you as someone who has given presentations in the past using these updated acronyms, are all real mouthfulls), to LGBT+.
Also yes, queer is more inclusive! Especially coming at it from an academic standpoint, people didn’t always use or identify with the terms we use now and you can’t always try to cram them into our modern perceptions of sexuality. We can argue for years about whether a famous historical figure was gay or bisexual or straight and trans or whatever, but if we can all agree that they were somehow queer then using that term allows us to move past the debate and into productive discussion. And not everybody everywhere shares the same terms for sexual and gender identity, or even the same concepts of those things, so queer really is a more inclusive term in a lot of cases.
Like yeah if you’re talking specifically about gay or trans people you can just say gay or transgender, but if you’re talking about more than one identity or someone who doesn’t conform to our perceptions of ‘LGBT,’ or a person or people whose identity you don’t know, queer is just the better word.
“That’s SO gay”, “Oh my god, you’re not a LESBIAN, are you?”
Your words are slurs, too. Why do you get your words, but I don’t get mine? What makes you so special?
I’m here, I’m queer, go fuck yourself.
queer is not a slur, stop drinking the TERF koolaid
every time one of you fools spout about ‘queer is a slur’ a terf laughs because their fucking plan to make that word ‘taboo’ is fucking working you dipshit.
I did not get my degree in queer literature for you all to keep pulling this bullshit.
baby gays,,,, i beg of you to learn your queer history and stop listening to terf bullshit
every single one of our labels has been used as a slur against us.
terfs and -phobes are always going to try and hurt us with what we identify as. but the fact remains these are OUR labels and always have been.
we’re here, we’re queer, get used to it.
I don’t know if this is just because I’m not American but I’ve never heard queer used as a slur. Ever. Meanwhile gay was the insult in the 2000s here. Everything you didn’t like was ‘soo gay’. Queer wasn’t even a word most of us knew back then.
It just baffled me that people would think an identifier is automatically a slur just because someone uses it to mock someone. If we did that gay would be a slur. Stupid would be a slur. Autistic would be a slur.
The reason people are upset about the word queer is that it’s a unifying term. You can say you’re queer and all people will know is that you’re part of the community. But you can’t say you’re LGBT, you have to say you’re gay or trans or ace. They don’t want you to be ambiguously queer. They want you to say which kind of queer you are so they can decide whether you’re undesirable.
yeah in the 90s and early 2000s kids would call each other “gay” as an insult. But no one ties themselves in knots over whether “gay” is a slur. So yeah, please ffs learn your history.
They want you to say which kind of queer you are so they can decide whether you’re undesirable.